The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 138, No 5, 621-627.
© 2007 American Dental Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gordan, V. V.
Right arrow Articles by Mjör, I. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gordan, V. V.
Right arrow Articles by Mjör, I. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

RESEARCH

A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material

Results at eight years



Valeria V. Gordan, DDS, MS, Eduardo Mondragon, Ronald E. Watson, DDS, MAE, Cyndi Garvan, PhD and Ivar A. Mjör, BDS, MSD, MS, Dr. odont

Background. The authors evaluated the performance of a giomer restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with a self-etching primer (FL-Bond, Shofu) for posterior restorations.

Materials and Methods. Two clinicians placed 26 Class I restorations and 35 Class II restorations in 31 patients ranging in age from 21 to 62 years (mean age, 34 years). Inclusion criteria required patients to have molar-supported permanent dentition free of any edentulous spaces and no clinically significant occlusal interference, as well as one or more permanent molars or premolars requiring new or replacement Class I or II restorations. Two of the authors examined the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria for color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, surface roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, proximal and occlusal contacts, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and luster.

Results. The two authors examined all restorations at the one-year recall visit, 58 at the two-year visit, 47 at the three-year visit, 39 at the four-year visit and 41 at the eight-year visit (16 Class I and 25 Class II restorations). During the eight-year period, they detected no changes with respect to surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. The majority of changes recorded were for marginal adaptation at occlusal (29 percent) and proximal (16 percent) surfaces and marginal staining at occlusal (15 percent) and proximal (32 percent) surfaces. The McNemar test showed significant changes between baseline and the eight-year evaluation only for marginal adaptation at occlusal surfaces (P = .0047) and marginal staining at proximal surfaces (P = .04). None of the restorations failed.

Conclusion. Most of the restorations maintained good quality during the observation period.

Clinical Implications. Beautifil restorative material and FL-Bond bonding system, when placed in Class I and II preparations, achieved clinically acceptable results after eight years of service.

Key Words: Class I and II restorations; giomer; self-etching adhesive; pre-reacted glass filler; universal restorative; acidic primer

Abbreviations: F-PRG: Fully reacted pre-reacted glass • PRG: Pre-reacted glass • S-PRG: Surface-reacted pre-reacted glass • USPHS: U.S. Public Health Service






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2007 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.